I was referring to the no DRM business. People have forgotten that should be STANDARD, not a premium.Spot1990 said:
PS4 Online Multiplayer Requires PS+ Subscription
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
which competitors. because both Wii and PC dont have this. only Xbox does. So majority (2 out of 3) competitors dont provide such restrictions. Not sure what OUYA will bring and it can be even considered competitor (then why not add the Nvidia handheld too? and mobile phones, gets kinda pointless), but i doubt it will use such tactics either looking at how they treat such things.CrazyCapnMorgan said:
do you use all of those online? because online you wouldj sut need one of them unless you need multiple different accounts online for different characters online (which is kinda like a MMO?), in which case thats how its done anyway. still i think ahving character limit in singleplayer games is extremely stupid idea to begin with and came due to lack of power of current outdated consoles.MeChaNiZ3D said:
Well, this sucks. It doesn't cost money to hand my friend a controller, to hop online on a computer and play with a buddy and the PlayStation being free to use something basic like multiplayer in a game that you pay full price for lets say, multiplayer was why I went with it and not Xbox. I'm okay tossing 5-10$ here or there for extra stuff, but a basic game component should NOT be an extra stuff. I'm not really impressed with any of this generations consoles, they all feel desperate and gimmicky.
Nah, stuff like Netflix and the Store are free, I believe.KoudelkaMorgan said:
-
I personally find this ok, since the benefits are pretty cool and I imagine they'll be using sub money to tighten up security and improve performance, but even if I don't get it, I'm still alright. Many of my favourite PS3 games I never really used multiplayer or they didn't have it, such as the inFamous games.
I wasn't even planning on getting a console before this, now I'm re-evaluating that decision...
PS+ seems like a good deal, I have a ps3 but have never used it. Thinking of starting, one question though:
I know that when you subscribe any free games are only yours to play whilst subscribing. Say you stop paying for a month or two since for some reason you cannot afford it, I know while not paying you lose access to those games.
My question is, does it give you access back to those games you've had in the PS+ past allowing you to re-download them if deleted (I know the games you get free change) when you start paying again, or do you only have access to the freebies from the later subscription and each after as long as you keep paying.
I know that when you subscribe any free games are only yours to play whilst subscribing. Say you stop paying for a month or two since for some reason you cannot afford it, I know while not paying you lose access to those games.
My question is, does it give you access back to those games you've had in the PS+ past allowing you to re-download them if deleted (I know the games you get free change) when you start paying again, or do you only have access to the freebies from the later subscription and each after as long as you keep paying.
It's amazing how much people are willing to accept as long as it's delivered slowly, step by step.
What gets me is why nobody's thought of this - Instead of charging for multiplayer, how about PS+ players being the only ones able to establish private servers instead? Then it's either have to deal with the rabble, or be able to host your own and watch the rabble deal with you!
Normally I'd be annoyed, but when the console itself is going for £100 less than the Xbone (which is still keeping its Xbox LIVE subscription) then I can dig it.Hazy992 said:
That's unfortunate. I was hoping Sony wouldn't pull a move like this. Still, + is fucking awesome and generally a good idea to have. I'm on 1 year subscription and don't regret it, and I'll keep having it as long as it's worth it. But, I'm still sad they're forcing it.
Something people don't seem to realize, is that they are moving to a pay model because they are upgrading their servers substantially, and it costs money to keep them maintained. Now I've been paying for Xbox live for a while, and I don't mind because it has been of wonderful quality. Now if the playstation is also getting this quality, with the better system, and the better services, and now better quality online, then I don't mind paying. Plus, they already do deals, for example, everytime you buy a year, you get 3 months free.
If it takes a $5 a month subscription to bring PSN's matching and chat services on par with the competition, then that's a fair trade off. We've always known that SONY gave away a little too much for free with PSN. Heck they outright told us this 2 years ago. $5 for PS+ ($4 if you buy annually) seems fairly reasonable. They sweeten the deal with freebies and deals, and really it is focusing the cost on those that use the service. It sucks a little. But if that's what it takes for infrastructure for things like Elder Scrolls online?
While that kinda sucks, at least you get free games and other goodies, thereby making it infinitely better than XBL.
Well, the PS+ Service has been attractive enough to at least consider getting on board in the past. I'd always waffled on it and just decided not to get it. So having to get it isn't some significant money dump.JEBWrench said:
Considering the increase in network use that this generation should require it makes sense for them to do this. We are buying the console and we are buying the games, but if someone uses multiplayer heavily then they're leaning on a network in a way that does cost Sony money to provide. I've always been a bit surprised that they haven't charged anything. The newer games will demand more server-side processing in multiplayer environments and so they're looking at potentially significant infrastructure updates.
Being mad at this would be like saying, "I bought a car (game), I bought gas (internet/power) for the car to work and I bought a house (console) to drive to, why the hell am I paying taxes to help build and repair roads (network infrastructure)?!"
The gating off of features in a game you already paid for behind an unrelated subscription fee is always bad news for the consumer.Steven Bogos said:
Now I would say that Playstation Plus is actually worth the subscription fee on it's own without withholding multiplayer, so it's not nearly as bad as the crap Microsoft pulled for years with Xbox Live, but that the service itself is worth it doesn't make the multiplayer aspect suddenly perfectly fine for consumers. If you pay $60 for a game that includes multiplayer, that should be all you pay. Getting nickel and dimed beyond that is not acceptable.
Xbox Live set an absolutely horrid precedent years ago and it's disappointing to see Sony follow suit.
I think this is a rather justified cost, running servers to play on is not cheap. Even though a lot of PC-users will never pay this cost but renting a dedicated server for your online shooter can set you back up to a dollar per player per month and this for only one game and you don't get anything besides it. Online play was never actually free to begin with so it seems fair to me.
I've got the feeling they are doing this for logical reasons and aren't doing it to just make more money (which is what Microsoft has been doing with all the advertising on their system that is view-able from the front end of the dash board). They are allowing indies to self publish, meaning there's no licensing fee they have to pay Sony in order to put their games up. In addition, they are doing server upgrades, which likely means better voice chat and other features that were semi-ignored on the PS3.Spot1990 said:
I totally understand people who don't like having to pay a fee to use the internet enabled features of a game they purchased, though. We want to be able to choose where we spend our money, and being forced to pay a fee for something that is likely an essential function of a system isn't fun.
